Hi Rich, You have convinced me. We can either ignore this while the rest of the industry moves on or deal with it now. Either way, I doubt that the arc of thinking will come back to "this usage is just fine".
Still, I'd like to say that no one here is going to force PMCs to act now. It is entirely up to each project if and when they change. The nice thing about the tool is that it allows projects to focus on those items that are important to them. Thanks for your perspective, Craig > On Jul 12, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > > On 7/9/21 10:44 PM, Craig Russell wrote: >> Before this gets out of hand, I have to object to flagging "master" as a git >> branch name without any other context like "slave". > > Pragmatically speaking, you have a choice here. It seems pretty clear to me, > having been at the center of this discussion for almost a year now, that the > industry *is* going to settle on removing this usage of the word master. So > you (we) can choose to flag it now, or we can wait a few years and be out of > step with the rest of the conversation. > > Kind of like how we resisted having a code of conduct for so many years, and > then just did it because it was embarrassing not to. > > Or we can choose to be leaders. > > Yes, there's an argument to be made that "master" is fine in context Z but is > a problem in context Q. I have been part of this conversation dozens of > times, at least. But ... why? This specific case is easier to remediate than > almost any of the other ones - you change a branch name, and you spend an > hour updating your tooling. It is by far the easiest win in this entire > effort. Unlike, say, altering function names that are based on libraries that > are based on IETF standards. > > -- > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com > @rbowen Craig L Russell c...@apache.org
